Daily Kos and his buddies on the extreme Left - MOVE ON and the like, (who now control the Democrat Party) are ecstatic. I am not.

I've been a registered Democrat since 1974. And I say this challenge proves that the Democrat Party's Left-wing is absolutely loony. They're making the party even more Leftist than it was during the McGovern era! And they'll get the same results. WHY? It's quite simple: you cannot get more votes in the south or midwest by going further to the Left. Not a single Democrat on the ballot in the last two federal elections lost to someone more to the Left. Going further to the Left will mean MORE LOSSES for the Democrats. That the Left doesn't see only this proves that these Leftists are IDIOTS. Idiots who are destroying the oldest politcal party in the land. The party of "neocons and hawks" like FDR and TRUMAN and JFK and LBJ and Scoop Jackson and Joe.

If the Left retakes the party - and remakes it in the image of McGovern and Kennedy and Kucinich and Dean and Pelosi and Sharpton and Feingold, then GOOD RIDDANCE!

HEY: I betchya that Mark Warner, Bill Richardson, Tom Vilsack, Phil Bredesen, Evan Bayh and even Hillary Clinton - (and every other centrist or centrist-wannabe in the party) - are almost upset as me. WHY!? Because if DK and MOVEON succeed in dragging the party EVEN MORE to the Left, then these more moderate Democrats know they don't have a freakin-deakin chance at their party's nomination in 2008. STAY TUNED.

NOTE: It will be very VERY interesting to see which national Democrats campaign for Joe in the primary. When GOP liberal Arlen Spector faced a challenge from his right-flank, right-winger Santorum fought very VERY hard for the senior senator from PA. An honorable thing to do. Will Hillary and Dodd and ther others I listed do the same thing? We shall see.... we shall see. (I suspect they do not have the BALLS to take on DK or MOVEON.) Stay tuned...

Why are kidnappings so common in Iraq? Could it be that so many have paid the RANSOM which the kidnappers seek? Duh.

Here are a FEW stories on ransoms paid [PARTIAL LISTING!]: HERE (4 "peace activists"); HERE by Italy; by Egypt HERE; by France HERE; by Cyprus (home of Benon Sevan) HERE; by Sweden HERE - and in this last post, the blogger asks: "Can a day go by without some European country paying ransom so that terrorists in Iraq can buy more weapons to kill Americans?" I would only add that the jihadoterrorists also kill A LOT of Iraqis. The ransoms paid by these appeasers pays for the "insurgency." MAYBE THE COWARDLY, APPEASING RANSOM-PAYERS DON'T CARE?!

OR MAYBE THEY LIKE THE FACT THAT THEIR MONEY BUYS WEAPONS THAT KILL AMERICANS AND IRAQIS FIGHTING FOR FREEDOM!? OR MAYBE THEY'D PREFER IT IF WE JUST WENT AWAY AND THEY COULD LIVE IN PEACEFUL DHIMMITUDE!?

We cannot depend on countries which pay ransom to the jihadoterrorists; they cannot make good allies.

Foreign Minister Alexander Downer has reiterated Prime Minister John Howard's insistence that the Government will not pay a ransom. Mr Downer said paying to secure freedom for Mr Wood, who is being held by Islamic insurgents, would only encourage more kidnappings. "We'll be doing everything we can with two exceptions -- we won't be paying ransom and we won't be changing our policies," he told reporters. "We are not sub-contracting our foreign policy to terrorists. And we're certainly not going to have the money of Australian taxpayers expropriated by terrorists," Mr Downer said.

... these people are opposed to what we believe in and what we stand for, far more than what we do. If you imagine that you can buy immunity from fanatics by curling yourself in a ball, apologising for the world - to the world - for who you are and what you stand for and what you believe in, not only is that morally bankrupt, but it's also ineffective. Because fanatics despise a lot of things and the things they despise most is weakness and timidity. There has been plenty of evidence through history that fanatics attack weakness and retreating people even more savagely than they do defiant people. ...

you cannot conduct the foreign policy of a country as if it were shadow-boxing with fanatics. You just can't do that. You have to take decisions that you believe are in your country's best interests, and I believe very strongly it's in this country's best interests in 2005 to do the things we are doing in cooperation with our allies and our friends.

I cannot look you in the face or the Australian public in the face and say, "This country is guaranteed immunity from a terrorist attack." I hope and pray it never happens, but it's a possibility. We have to understand that that is the world we're living in, and it's fair to say that the people who died on the London Underground, they were certainly not all white Anglo-Celtic Christians, they were a combination of people of different races and of different religions and it just undermines the fact that murderous fanatics are the enemies of us all, not just the enemies of a stereotypical idea of what a Westerner represents.

The Aussies are GREAT! In fact, most of the Aussies and the Brits just simply GET IT. Old Europe simply DOES NOT. Why?! Continental Western Europe is largely mired in the thrall of post modernism (and the false collectivism, the false pacifism, the false moral relativism and the false anti-colonialism which are concomittant with post modernism).

Brits and Aussies (and Americans) are largely inoculated against the inner rot of post modernism by the strong presence of Natural Law which is safely located DEEP within Anglo culture. The NEW democracies of Eastern Europe aren;t Anglo, but are better allies because they are still so close to the time of their own liberation, and so they still appreciate the importance of fighting for democracy and the pitfalls of socialism. That's why Poland and the Czech republic are better allies than France and Germany. And less likely to pay ransom.

One of the most revealing aspects of the NSA scandal has been the way in which Bush followers have been running around shrieking that national security has been damaged and treason has been committed by the New York Times. All of that is based upon the Times' disclosure that Bush ordered the NSA to eavesdrop without judicial oversight (rather than with it). Now that the initial screaming and demands for hangings are dying down a little, his followers are confronted with the fact that this accusation makes no sense whatsoever, since whether we eavesdrop with judicial oversight or without it can’t possibly be of any use to terrorists.

... So the diabolical, unprecedentedly dangerous terrorists who pose an existential threat to the U.S. that is equal to or greater than that posed by the Soviet Union are, in John’s mind, so uninformed, unsophisticated and stupid that they never heard of or knew about the 30-year old public law that defines the powers of the U.S. Government to engage in surveillance for foreign intelligence purposes. They never heard of FISA or knew anything about it until the Times published its story.

And now the cat is out of the bag – now, thanks to the Times, they know that we have this law called "FISA" and have become aware that we do this thing called "eavesdropping" and now they will be able to thwart us. Is that supposed to be satire?

GREENWALD'S HEAVY-HANDED SARCASM ASIDE, HE REALLY ARGUES THAT WHAT BUSH AUTHORIZED WAS CONSTITUTIONAL AND LEGAL. How did he do this? Simple.

This post argues that the leak coudn't have harmed USA security because al Qaeda and its affilates must presumably know that they are being eavesdropped upon. If this is the case, then the eavesdropping is NOT unreasonable and is therefore entirely CONSTITUTIONAL according to Article IV - which only prohibits UNreasonable searches and seizures.

[Which leads to this question: WHY DID THEY DO IT THIS WAY?! The answer is simple: They knew that the intercepts - although controversial - were legal and constitutional, and that therefore they wouldn't get anywhere using the legal whistle-blowing process. Therefore, they leaked it to the NYTIMES right before the 2004 election because they thought it could harm the president's re-election bid. This is the only logical explanation for why they leaked and when they leaked. It's another example of how the clandestine community attempting a virtual coup d'etat against Bush.]

I also take issue with Greenwald's argument that the NYTIMES and the leakers are not traitors (Greenwald argues that the leak was harmless to our national security because jihadoterrorist must already assume they don't have secure communications. And he argues that a harmless leak can't be treasonous.) HE IS WRONG AGAIN.

The NYTIMES committed treason because the only beneficiary of the leak was the enemy. HOW? Though the leak may not have been an earth-shattering NEWS to the jihadoterrorists, the leak nevertheless CONFIRMED to the enemy what they may have merely presumed or suspected.

Confirming details of the speed and range of intercept activity does actual harm to our efforts to collect useful and ACTIONABLE intelligence, and that obviously aids the enemy. HOW?!

Confirmation alerts the enemy that they MUST seek other less interceptible means to communicate - such as by courier, or by other means. They CAN do this, AND these extra efforts make it tougher for us to learn about and prevent attacks - ESPECIALLY HERE IN THE USA. This is incontrovertible. And it proves potential HARM - of a potentially catastrophic level. (Remember, a successful terrorist attack can cost US thousands of lives and trillions of dollars and tens of thousnads of lost jobs.)

In conclusion: Greenwald UNINTENTIONALLY helps prove that: (1) the intercepts are constitutional; (2) the leakers are criminals; and (3) the leaks hurts national security and aided the enemy. Thanks Glenn Greenwald. I hope your comrades on the Left learn have learned something as well.

It would have been a scandal if the NSA had not been using these tools to track down the bad guys. There is evidence that the information harvested helped foil several plots and disrupt al-Qaeda operations.

There is also evidence, according to U.S. intelligence officials, that since the New York Times broke the story, the terrorists have modified their behavior, hampering our efforts to keep track of them—but also, on the plus side, hampering their ability to communicate with one another.

See Arab reports on Khaddam's announcement HERE and HERE and HERE - and a UPI roundup of the Arab press on this story HERE. In addition, one must remember that Khaddam's original interviews were with the "PAN-ARAB PRESS." I think this is significant: The neighbors of Assad are not covering up for him; they are preparing their populations for the inevitable - as if it was IMMINENT. THIS IS VERY GOOD NEWS.

Residents of the eastern Turkish town hit by a fatal outbreak of bird flu in humans have besieged a local hospital seeking treatment for symptoms. Three children from Dogubeyazit have died this week, at least two of them from the virulent H5N1 strain. [These are the first deaths outside of Asia - reliapundit]

Despite no evidence that the disease has begun to spread between humans, locals have sought treatment at a poorly-equipped hospital in the town. ...

The World Health Organisation has attempted to play down fears of the disease, as Turkish officials sought to defend themselves from accusations they were slow to act. A WHO spokeswoman in Geneva said the bird flu outbreak had been contained in one Turkish province and there was "no need for excessive panic".

Twenty people remain in hospital in Van, a larger city in eastern Turkey, under treatment for suspected bird flu.

Is this the start of the pandemic? Are the locals hysterical and wrong, or do they know/intuit something? Time will tell. A SHORT TIME. Stay tuned. FOR SURE: We will know if H5N1 has become H2H in one or two months. More from WHO.

I think we should remember that FISA was passed in part as a reaction to NIXON'S DOMESTIC SURVEILLANCE ABUSES. The keyword here is ABUSE. Nixon ABUSEDREAL presidential power, (he tried to construe and use powers in a way that was wrong) - HE DID NOT INVENT OUT OF WHOLE CLOTH POWERS THAT THE POTUS DOESN'T CONSTITUTIONALLY HAVE.

The POTUS does have the right and authority to order warrantless searches and seizures of US CITIZENS if the targets are primarily foreign agents. FISA law says this; the FISC has said this; the FISCR itself has ruled on this, (QUOTE: "... the President’s inherent constitutional authority to conduct warrantless foreign intelligence surveillance, ..." ); the SCOTUS has ruled on this; Federal district courts have ruled on this. [These points are from liberal constitutional law professor Cass Sunstein, former Clinton #2 USA AG John Schmidt, and the legal eagles at POWERLINE.]

Nixon's searches and seizures were an ABUSE OF POWER because they targeted: (1) domestic threats who were (2) actually personal political foes of Nixon and NOT real threats to the national security of the USA. Other presidents, the SCOTUS, federal district lower courts, the FISCR and the FISC have all reiterated this point: they have each ruled that the POTUS has the authority to order warrantless searches and seizures if the targets are agents of foreign powers - even if they are US persons or US citizens.

THEREFORE, when the POTUS orders programmatic surveillance or intercepts of agents of al Qaeda and its affiliates (even if they are US persons inside the USA) the POTUS is acting constitutionally and in accordance with FISA and the AUMF. The NSA intercepots program, therefore, cannot be described as an abuse of power; it is the correct use of constitutionally and legally defined power by the POTUS.

Those in the Left-wing dominated MSM and Left-wing dominated Democrat party who assail Bush as having committed a Nixonian deed and an impeachable offense in this matter miscontrue Nixon, FISA and the NSA intercepts. In other words: They get it ALL WRONG.

President Bush's rationale for eavesdropping on Americans without warrants rests on questionable legal ground, and Congress does not appear to have given him the authority to order the surveillance, said a Congressional analysis released Friday.

This research was done by career bureaucrats who are considered by most to be "non-partisan." They are - however - all career Congressional researchers, and they're biased against the executive branch and for the legislative branch. Besides this, the report was FAR FROM CONCLUSIVE, and their doubts were covered with qualifiers.

UPDATE: POWERLINE has read and analyzed the CRS report and compared it to the "breathless" reportage and found the reportage to be BIASED! (How shocking! heh!):

The Post's coverage of the CRS report is deeply misleading. In fact, the CRS concluded:

Whether an NSA activity is permissible under the Fourth Amendment and the statutory scheme outlined above is impossible to determine without an understanding of the specific facts involved and the nature of the President's authorization, which are for the most part classified.

The report also acknowledges the legitimacy of the administration's claim that the Constitution gives the President the inherent power to conduct the surveillance in question, regardless of any Congressional action or inaction (more on this later):

Court cases evaluating the legality of warrantless wiretaps for foreign intelligence purposes provide some support for the assertion that the President possesses inherent authority to conduct such surveillance.

Where the Post is most mendacious, however, is in the truncated quote that it presents as the CRS's overall conclusion: "The administration's legal justification 'does not seem to be ... well grounded,' they said."

Here is what the CRS actually wrote:

Given such uncertainty, the Administration's legal justification, as presented in the summary analysis from the Office of Legislative Affairs, does not seem to be as well-grounded as the tenor of that letter suggests.

So the Post's headline, instead of reading, "Report Rebuts Bush on Spying," should have said, "Report Expresses Uncertainty on Spying."

Friday, January 06, 2006

AS HE SIGNED IT INTO LAW IN OCTOBER OF 1998, PRESIDENT CLINTON LAUDED HR 3594 - "THE INTELLIGENCE COMMUNITY WHISTLEBLOWER PROTECTION ACT" - THE VERY LAW THE NSA LEAKERS BROKE IN ORDER TO SMEAR BUSH. CLINTON:

Office of the Press SecretaryFor Immediate Release October 20, 1998STATEMENT BY THE PRESIDENT

Today I have signed into law H.R. 3694, the "Intelligence Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1999." The Act authorizes Fiscal Year 1999 appropriations for U.S. intelligence and intelligence-related activities.

The Act is the product of the dedication and effort of many people in the Congress and my Administration. I believe that the Act will help our Nation maintain a strong intelligence capability and preserve the safety and security of our country. [...]

Finally, I am satisfied that this Act contains an acceptable whistleblower protection provision, free of the constitutional infirmities evident in the Senate-passed version of this legislation. The Act does not constrain my constitutional authority to review and, if appropriate, control disclosure of certain classified information to the Congress. I note that the Act's legislative history makes clear that the Congress, although disagreeing with the executive branch regarding the operative constitutional principles, does not intend to foreclose the exercise of my constitutional authority in this area.

It's obvious that Clinton understood what the whistleblower protection provision (HR3594) meant, AND - INTERESTINGLY ENOUGH, that he also thought that it was important to use this moment to reasssert the pre-eminence of the operative constitutional principles of the POTUS in this area.

This presidential statement is a DOUBLE WHAMMY for foes of Bush: it clearly reiterates that the NSA leakers are criminals, and that the constitutional powers Bush is asserting over the NSA and the gathering of intelligence are neither new or peculiar to conservative or GOP presidents. (Proving once again that this whole episode is a drizzle in a teacup.)

Since the New York Times published the Risen/Lichtblau NSA story on December 16, we have cited the federal law that makes the disclosures on which the story is based a crime. The federal law is 18 U.S.C. § 798, a law that precisely prohibits leaks of the type of classified information disclosed in the story. Subsection (a) of the statute provides:

Whoever knowingly and willfully communicates, furnishes, transmits, or otherwise makes available to an unauthorized person, or publishes, or uses in any manner prejudicial to the safety or interest of the United States or for the benefit of any foreign government to the detriment of the United States any classified information—

(1) concerning the nature, preparation, or use of any code, cipher, or cryptographic system of the United States or any foreign government; or (2) concerning the design, construction, use, maintenance, or repair of any device, apparatus, or appliance used or prepared or planned for use by the United States or any foreign government for cryptographic or communication intelligence purposes; or (3) concerning the communication intelligence activities of the United States or any foreign government; or (4) obtained by the processes of communication intelligence from the communications of any foreign government, knowing the same to have been obtained by such processes— Shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both.

POWERLINE: Subsection (b) defines the critical terms of the statute; suffice it to say that I believe they are clearly applicable to the conduct of the "nearly a dozen current and former govenment officials" who spoke to the Times. Their violation of the statute is a felony. Because their disclosures to the Times were illegal, these current and former government officials sought the promise of confidentiality from the Times to protect their identity.

[H.R.3694 - Intelligence Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1999 (Enrolled as Agreed to or Passed by Both House and Senate)

TITLE VII--WHISTLEBLOWER PROTECTION FOR INTELLIGENCE COMMUNITY EMPLOYEES REPORTING URGENT CONCERNS TO CONGRESS

(a) SHORT TITLE- This title may be cited as the `Intelligence Community Whistleblower Protection Act of 1998'.]

This law was SPECIFICALLY PASSED TO PROTECT WHISTLEBLOWERS WHO HAVE CLASSIFIED INFORMATION. This law protect the leakers AND THE CLASSIFIED INFORMATION. (Use the link; RTWT.)

The law was UNANIMOUSLY passed and makes it clear that if a person thought that a classified operation was unconstitutonal or illegal they would have a way to "BLOW THEIR WHISTLE" without jeopardizing national security.

This law is WELL KNOWN to all people who handle classified data, it was passed to protect them.

The "dozen or so sources" the NYTIMES claims to have on this story have ALL broken this law. They did so KNOWINGLY, with forethought. They acted out of malice to the POTUS and his policies. They did so (by going to the NYTIMES) JUST BEFORE the 2004 election.

It is obvious therefore that their intent was to STEAL the election with a "scandal" reported in the MSM which could NOT have been properly addressed in the time remaining before the election - JUST LIKE RATHERGATE. This is nothing less than AN ATTEMPTED COUP, by "career bureaucrats"(AKA: POLITBURO) - a "shadow government" which thinks they UNIQUELY possess the "intelligence" to make policy and therefoe should have the power to the make policy of the USA, as opposed to our "less intelligent" ELECTED leaders.

The leakers knew that the POTUS had the right to do authorize what he authorized, THAT'S WHY THEY DIDN'T USE THE PROPER CHANNELS SET FORTH IN THE WHISTLEBLOWER PROTECTION ACT. The leakers knew it was legal and constitutional but FELT that it could be SPUN into a scandal by a willing MSM, an this spin would HOODWINK a gullible electorate.

If the leakers had HONEST CONCERNS about the legality or the constitutionality program - and IF THEIR LEAKS WERE NOT AIMED AT STEALING THE ELECTION - then they WOULD HAVE used the proper channels as specified in HR 3694. The fact that they did not is PROOF of their nefarious aims.

The leakers should be found, charged, tried, convicted and either jailed for leaking classified data - or executed for treason.

[ASIDE: If the aim of the leakers was to damage Bush politically - and since this aim was SHARED by the NYTIMES - then why did the NYTIMES hold-up the story?

I think that they held the story because they'd just got BURNED BADLY by RATHERGATE (and the stolen weapons story - remember that: a depot in Iraq had been looted at some time, and folks were trying to "BLAME BUSH." I think it was called CACAGATE.). These BOGUS BUSH SCANDALS made the NYTIMES gun-shy. THEY FELT THAT THEY WOULDB'T BE ABLE TO HOODWINK THE ELECTORATE. THEY FELT THIS WAY BECAUSE OF THE INCREDIBLE FACT-CHECKING DONE BY THE BLOGOSPERE.

This scandal gun-shyness- coupled with the FULL-COURT PRESS by the POTUS, DCI Tenet, USA D.AG Comey and a leading Democrat in Congress all making the case for secrecy - led the NYTIMES to defer.

WHY DID THEY RUN IT NOW!? To boost book sales, to put the "KIBOSH" on the Patriot Act, and to damage the positive PR the president was getting from the Iraqi elections. Simply put: It was now or never. If the "annointed" bosses at NYTIMES were patriots, then the answer would have been never.]

Former Syrian Vice-President Abdul Halim Khaddam wants to oust President Bashar al-Assad through a popular uprising, he told an Arabic newspaper. Mr Khaddam told the Pan-Arab al-Sharq al-Awsat that the pressure for change had to come from within Syria. On Thursday, he said Mr Assad should go to prison for complicity in the murder of former Lebanese PM Rafik Hariri. "This regime cannot be reformed, so there is nothing left but to oust it," he said. "The Syrian people will be the ones to oust it."

Two suicide bombers killed 120 people and wounded more than 200 in attacks near a Shi'ite holy shrine and a police recruiting centre, the bloodiest day in Iraq for four months. ... Coming a day after 58 people died in a wave of bombings and shootings, the latest bloodshed ratcheted up tension between Iraq's minority Sunni Arabs and majority Shi'ite Muslims.

The suicide bombers struck in Karbala, one of Shi'ite Islam's holiest cities, and Ramadi, a Sunni Arab stronghold in western Anbar province and a hotbed of the insurgency. "This is a war against Shi'ites," said Rida Jawad al-Takia, a senior member of the Supreme Council for Islamic Revolution in Iraq (SCIRI), one of the country's leading Shi'ite parties. "Apparently to the terrorists, no Shi'ite child or woman should live," he said. "We are really worried. It seems they want a civil war."

The Sunni/Baathists/jihadoterrorist scum who murdered the Shias are murdering them in order to re-establish their tyrannny over Iraq. THIS WILL FAIL: Neither the Kurds or the Shias will EVER allow Iraq to fall back into the hands of the Sunnis.

THE ONLY EFFECT THIS CAMPAIGN OF TERROR HAS IS ON THE LEFT - AND THE MSM THEY STILL DOMINATE: The Left and the MSM see this continuing terror and cry that we are losing, we can't win and should get out ASAP. I wish these Lefties were at least as brave as the Kurds and the Shias. If they were, then we wouldn't have to waste energy fighting this stupid political battle on the home-front.

BTW: AT THE TIME OF THE BOMBING AT THE POLICE RECRUITING CENTER, MORE THAN 1000 IRAQIS WERE THERE - IN THE PROCESS OF VOLUNTEERING TO SERVE. Each of these volunteers was MORE brave, and MORE committed to democracy in Iraq than most of the Left and the MSM. MORE HERE. And HERE.

If we have learned anything in the last 25 years -- from Beirut, to Somalia, to the USS Cole -- it is that terrorist attacks are not caused by the projection of force; they are invited by the perception of weakness.

And this nation made a decision: We will never go back to the false comforts of the world before September 11th, 2001. We will engage these enemies with the goal of victory. And with the American military in the fight, that victory is certain.

ONLY IF THAT MILITARY IS UNDER THE COMMAND OF A PRESIDENT WHO ISN'T GOING TO COW-TOW TO EUROWEENIES, APPEASERS, NAYSAYERS, DEFEATISTS, DOVES OR THE LEFT.

In other words, as long as the White House is occupied by a Republican. (EXCEPTIONS: Lieberman.)

The fourth series of Celebrity Big Brother has kicked off with MP George Galloway joining 10 others, including Michael Barrymore, in the house. Other celebrities unveiled include Faria Alam, famous for her affair with England coach Sven-Goran Eriksson, and US basketball star Dennis Rodman. Model Jodie Marsh and actress Rula Lenska are also among the housemates.

This seems to me to be a better place for the socialist Galloway - virulent anti-Semite, shill for islamofascists, bribe-taker of Saddam, and blowhard/buffoon - than the House of Commons.

Representative Richard H. Baker, a Republican from suburban Baton Rouge who derides Democrats for not being sufficiently free-market, is the unlikely champion of a housing recovery plan that would make the federal government the biggest landowner in New Orleans - for a while, at least. Mr. Baker's proposed Louisiana Recovery Corporation would spend as much as $80 billion to pay off lenders, restore public works, buy huge ruined chunks of the city, clean them up and then sell them back to developers.

Desperate for a big-scale fix to the region's huge real estate problem, Louisiana officials and business leaders of all stripes - black and white, Republican and Democrat - have embraced this little-known congressman and his grandiose plan, calling its passage crucial. While the White House has yet to sign on, there are already signs that some Congressional leaders are interested in pursuing it; Mr. Baker said administration officials had not rejected it outright.

I love New Orleans. I think it is imperative to keep the STATE and LOCAL government OUT OF reconstruction; the federal government is less corrupt than either. BUT THIS PLAN IS A COLOSSAL MISTAKE, TOO. It's too statist.

I think, the best way to quickly redevelop New Orleans, would if the the local and state governments used KELO.

YUP: KELO. They should condemn huge swathes of destroyed real estate and then sell it to PRIVATE DEVELOPERS who would have to pay market price and then redevelop it according to an urban develoment plan approved local, state, and federal governments.

THIS WOULD NOT COST THE TAXPAYERS A PENNY.

I hated the KELO decision. But it is the law of the land. I love New Orleans - and want to see it beautifully rebuilt - more than I hate KELO.

Who will lead KADIMA if Sharon is as ill as the doctors know say? The way it looks now, Sharon will not be able to lead the nation or the Kadima Party for the next few months - AT BEST; though I pray he recovers miraculously and soon.

Kadima was built on the sheer boldness and bravura and brilliant strategy of Sharon. Who might be its next leader?

Ehud Olmert is a good man politically but he lacks the military gravitas necessary to make BIG BOLD MOVES like Sharon could. Shaul Mofaz current Defense Minister and former Likud member. He could be bold.

Ehud Barak would be my dark horse candidate. He has left the Labor Party - for all intents and purposes; (his ex-wfie of 35 years is a leader of Kadima). Either of these men would be a good PM - Barak has learned his lesson - and re-earned his creds - when he PROVED that Arafat was a fraud and an unrepentent jihadoterrorist.

And then there's NATAN SHARANSKY. And BIBI is not as bad as some think. Both of these men bring the added value of being committed to the free market. Kadima was not.

Wednesday, January 04, 2006

I've been watching CNN and FOX and MSNBC: Sharon has a SIGNIFICANT STOKE and a CEREBRAL HEMMORAGE and is UNDER GENERAL ANESTHESIA and IS HAVING SURGERY.

As one reporter said: he is not fighting for the Pime Ministership; he is fighting for his life.

I pray that a longer life for Sharon - in which he may give even more service to Israel - is consistent with God's plans.

He is a truly GIANT in Israel's history. If he crosses over, or lives but becomes to diabled to serve any further, then the loss will be very great, too. MEn like Sharon dont come around that often. Sharon is a courageous man, and brilliant and bold strategist - on the battlefield and in the political arena. he has advanced the cause of Israel and israel's security as much as any man who ever lived. God Bless Him.

Years ago, Sharon's reputatuion was unfairly maligned for being behind a mass murder which occurred in a part of Lebanon which was then occupied by the IDF. (This SLANDER has persisted with the islamothugs and their comrades on the Left.) This massacre occurred at the Shatila refugee camp; a few hundred Lebanese-Arab Muslims were murdered by Lebanese-Arab Christians. Of course, they blamed the Jew! At the time, Sharon was defense minister - and he resigned. Blaming Sharon for the massacre is like blaming Rumsfeld for a massacre of Taliban by the Northern Alliance in Afghanistan. IOW: it's ABSOLUTELY ABSURD. Anyhow, Sharon put the chapter behind him, and his comeback proved he was innocent of any wrong-doing.

I am praying for Sharon the Great tonight. And Israel. I hope Israel's enemies are not so stupid as to think that this situation makes Israel more vulnerable.

Polls done between 2003 and 2005 constistently show that between 40%-50% of Americans think that LEGAL limitations on abortion is a good thing. In addition, another 20-25% think they should be illegal. That means 60-65-% are opposed to abortion on demand.

If these polls are accurate - (and the number of them which show similar results makes me think they are), then it is NOTHING BUT PURE DEMAGOGUERY WHEN PRO-CHOICE ADVOCATES REFER TO PRO-LIFE JUDICIAL NOMINEES AS "OUT OF THE MAINSTREAM." This is simply another example of the Left's penchant for "THE BIG LIE."

If a person who is pro-life is out of the mainstream, then 45% of America is out of the mainstream - and that is a contradiction in terms. America is still pretty evenly on abortion rights - which is why Bush is right to follow a policy which seeks to strengthen the "culture of life" and not proceeding legislatively - yet, not until a clear majority of Americans agree that abortions should be very limited.

Those who portray Alito as out of the mainstream on this issue are distorting the facts.

"I am concerned whether, and to what extent, the National Security Agency has received specific presidential authorization for the operations you are conducting."

This is a contemporaneous admission that Pelosi believed that all the NSA probably needed to proceed with their intercepts was a presidential finding. Of course now, Pelosi - and other Leftist Democrat dove appeasers - want to impeach Bush for doing just that. York has much more. RTWT. Here's a link to the NYTIMES article which included Pelosi's redacted letter.

This could be, as some invitees have speculated, window dressing for the President’s continuing efforts to sell the Iraq War to the American people. Or, it could be something much more ominous.

Following on the heels of last weekend’s leak to Der Speigle about our contingency plans to bomb Iranian nuclear sites, this gathering could be one more signal we are sending to the Iranians that we are deathly serious about preventing them from building a nuclear weapon. Since Iran is going to be on the agenda, the President may want to gage what kind of support he can expect from Democratic heavy hitters if he feels it necessary to escalate the crisis, probably within a few weeks.

I think this speculation is VERY interesting - and very plausible. Stay tuned...

Steyn is perhaps the best columnist in the world today. And a much better writer than me. Today he has another winner, about the islamification of Europe through demograhy. But he is NOT the first to warn the world about the demography problems palguing Europe - not by a long-shot! Bat Y'eor is the origiantor of the analysis. And I wrote about it a 50 weeks ago in two posts, which I reprise here; (more proof that THIS BLOG is ahead of the curve, and therefore one you should read everyday!):

The graphic is a chart which shows the changing demography of the EU, projected out to 2025. The chart basically shows that - based on current trends (immigration and birth rate/death rate and religious ID trends) - the EU will become very very Muslim; 40% Muslim! Some commentators and historians - like Bat Y'eor - have been making this point for some time: that Europe is becoming Islamicized; some call it "Eurabia."

IS THIS AN IMPORTANT TREND? Can the religion of a nation or continent make a difference? Should we care if Europe becomes a little more Muslim?

Well, the Leftists in the USA are not shy about claiming that Christianity - especially evangelical Christianity - has an effect on OUR politics; they think it has a HUGE effect - and a BAD effect. Self-identified evangelicals comprise about 40% of the US population, according to some polls.

If that's POSSIBLE - if religion can inform politics here in the USA - then it must also be possible in the EU. THEREFORE, Leftists MUST accept that the trend in the CIA graph presents the potential for major social and political change.

I wonder what the Left thinks that change might involve? Do they think it will make the EU more tolerant? More libertarian? Less mysogynistic? Less anti-Semitic? More competitive in commerce and the sciences?

OF COURSE IT CANNOT MEAN ANY OF THOSE THINGS. It probably means the exact opposite of those things. YES: It's a harbinger for bad things, for things getting worse than they are.

Only two leading mainstream politicians in the EU seem to get this: Nicholas Sarkozy and Gert Wilders. I hope they're brave enough to lead a counter-movement - a second enlightenment - that can defeat this INVASION in a way that's consistent with Western values.

Either they do, or the Eiffel Tower will be the Muezzin for the Mosque du Notre Dame!

"For decades, the Church in France has been living on borrowed time, relying on a body of priests whose average age has steadily increased. That time has suddenly run out." Recent research suggests that French priests have become so old that half of them will die in the next eight years. [...] Fr Cambon - who has more than 30 churches to look after - says his elderly congregation is dying out so rapidly that in 10 years there may be no church in Puy L'Eveque at all. "People kept saying it would be all right," says Fr Cambon, "but they're about to be proved wrong. My fear is that the Roman Catholic Church will disappear altogether in France. That's the path we're on." For French seminaries it is a well-trodden path. Only 150 men completed their training as priests last year, for the whole of France.

The BBC correspondent blames secularization. The CIA/NIC chart reveals that the Christian character of the EU is under assault on another front, too: Muslimization by demography. Add to that the propensity of the CHIC APPEASERATI of Old Europe to pay obesiance to neo-Jiahdists - instead of confronting them and counter-attacking them - and, well, what you've got is a two front war on Judeo-Christianity in Europe in which only one side wants to fight! Unless and until Europe decides to fight back, they haven't got a chance! And Europe had better start fighting back now, on both fronts - or else, as the CIA/NIC chart reveals - it will be soon too late.

Most revealing. After all: People vote with their wallets and feet. The emigres are telling us that they have given up on France. And - because it is reasonable to assume that those leaving are among France's most assertive entrepreneurial and independent people - the drain is SERIOUS.

The fact that these people are leaving France tells you all you need to know about where France is today, and where it is heading. When added to the (a) demise of the Church, and (b) the surge of Islamic immigration and births (and low birth rates for native French) one can't avoid the conclusion that French France is in serious decline and that the Islamification of France is nearly unavoidable.

You are my sunshine - After overcoming a lawsuit, the Department of Labor forced unions to reveal where their member dues are going. As Opinion Journal reported today, the National Education Association gave $65 million to left-liberal groups to defeat voucher programs, charter schools, and Social Security reform.

The list of THE UNION'S goals reads just like a list of DNC goals - or, as the WSJ Op-ed goes on to say: "It's well understood that the NEA is an arm of the Democratic National Committee. (Or is it the other way around?)" RTWT! NOW!

Thanks to the Bush Administration, unions are NOW REQUIRED to disclose how they spend the dues of their hard-working members. So now EVERYONE will be better able to see how the AXIS FOR TAXES works. And WHO the Democrat Party REALLY works for.

If counter-terror equals terror, then there can be no justice. This is a point that MOST observers of Spielberg's movie MUNICH seem to think he and his movie miss, a point which seems blatantly apparent to anyone who has read that Speilberg quote about how retaliation leads to a never-ending cycle of violence:

That's a crock of morally relativist BS. If retaliation is wrong, then why abhor KKK lynchings, and seek justice against KKK murderers!? Why not just tell all victims of genocide to keep turning the cheek!?

YOU KNOW WHAT: if Black September had targeted GAYS, than anti-Semite Marxist and MUNICH screenwriter Kushner (who has publicly called the creation of the state of Isrsel a mistake) and morally relativist Spielberg would be ALL OVER the perps as heinous murderers - and then they'd portray them ACCURATELY. Without any moral relativism. They are SELECTIVELY MORALLY RELATIVIST - which means their pacifism is a phony facade. They're really merely Leftist elitists who LIKE to pick winners and losers. And if you're a member of a favorite/favored group of "VICTIMS," then they'll ENTITLE you to top-notch treatment.

We Israelis do not celebrate when we kill our enemies though our enemies celebrate when they kill us. Instead, it is a grim duty imposed on us by relentless racism and hate. ...

I was supposed to be with the 1972 Israeli Olympiads as a member of the Israeli women’s basketball team. At the last minute, the International Olympic Committee decided against including a women’s basketball event. (It did not become a regular event until the 1976 Olympics.)

I didn’t go to Munich, but I spent years training with the athletes who did go. We developed a close camaraderie, as people do at training camps where tensions and hopes are high. I knew each one of them personally. They were my friends. I watched in horror as the massacre unfolded on TV. I, too, could have been slaughtered by the killers linked to Yasser Arafat. Instead, I watched them slaughter my friends and saw how callously the world responded. The games went on even as my friends’ bodies were flown home draped not in medals but in burial shrouds.

I feared how Hollywood, even if it was Stephen Spielberg, would depict this tragedy but I finally went to see the film. Munich was worse than I had feared. It left me appalled and enraged. I felt violated. The film debased the memory of my friends. It exploited a horrifying atrocity. It slandered the brave Israeli volunteers who were ready to sacrifice their lives to seek justice and to risk orphaning their children in this dangerous but necessary assignment. Terrorists had to learn they could not murder Israelis abroad with impunity and that the perpetrators of this atrocity would not live to plot another one.

... A central theme is to make the audience believe that retributions against savage and barbaric slaughter do not deter terrorism. This concept is part of Leftist anti-war appeasement and a defeatist philosophy that blames victims of aggression.

But he offers no proof that this is true. The West made a major mistake in Munich when it appeased Hitler and failed to stop him before he became more powerful. We do not hear Spielberg argue for post-9/11 negotiations with Osama bin Laden. Spielberg, typical of so many “progressive” liberals, would like Israel to adopt his appeasement philosophy while he sits safely and comfortably thousands miles away in his Pacific Palisade mansion, far from danger.The moral equivalence message is illustrated by a statement made by the Council of American-Islamic Relations, (CAIR), an anti-Israel organization which asserts moral equivalence between victims and terrorists. In a 12/26/05 FoxNews interview, CAIR spokesman, Ahmed Bedeir, had this to say:

"The viewers who see this movie will find that both sides are seeking and fighting for the same thing and have the same desires … which is a homeland. Ironically [they both have] similar motives and desires…. The only difference between what these so-called Mossad-sponsored assassins and other terrorists—they both use a similar means—they make bombs and they blow up people and they kill innocent civilians and, in the meantime, violence begets violence. “

Bolivia's president-elect Evo Morales has said his country is uniting with Venezuela in a fight against "neoliberalism and imperialism". ... Mr Morales won the recent election on pledges to raise social spending and turn away from free-market policies. ... Mr Morales last week held talks in Cuba with Fidel Castro. ... Mr Morales' next stop is Spain.

Morales will fit in very well with the SOCIALIST PM of Spain - that cowardly appeaser, and arms supplier to Chavez - Zapatero. The next logical stop for Morales is MUGABE'S ZIMBABWE.

These anti-American blowhards share two things: their Leftism and their track record: they have ALL increased the poverty of their nations as they have decreased their citizens liberty. THIS IS NO COINCIDENCE: prosperity is a by-product of liberty. NEED POSITIVE PROOF? Just look at China, India, and eastern Europe - ALL of whom increased prosperity as they increased liberty - and trade (the FREEDOM to buy and sell anywhere).

These anti-American anti-trade/anti-globalist socialists are nothing less than tyrants who will make their nations poorer and less free.

The blows to Syria's regime are mounting. The latest on Friday was particularly damaging, because a trusted former high-ranking member delivered it. However, erstwhile Syrian vice president Abdul-Halim Khaddam's criticism of the regime and his accusing Syrian President Bashar Assad of threatening former Lebanese prime minister Rafik Hariri before the latter was assassinated, are not straws that will break the camel's back. The Syrian dictatorship remains strong and internal opposition remains weak.

... the Assad regime must go. The Syrian people deserve a strong and modern state, a democratic state, a state for all its citizens where the basic civil rights of all are respected, and where the rule of law prevails and state officials are held accountable for their misdeeds. The time to act is now. It is time to show the world that velvet revolutions can take place in Middle Eastern societies and that our people are no less lovers of freedom than any in the world.

The human spirit longs to be free. Everywhere. We must do whatever we can to aid and inspire the opposition inside Syria. Stay tuned...

Tuesday, January 03, 2006

The article is about another LEAK published by James Risen - of the NYTIMES. About how captured al Qaeda leader, Zubaydah, had told the CIA about Iraq's VERY NUANCED relationship with al Qaeda. But that Bush made it seem pervasive and iron-clad.

This leak was FALSE, and deliberately misleading in a way that was mant to HURT BUSH, and it probably points us toward the identity of the NSA leakers, too. And THEIR motives. Actually, the SSCI reported that tyhe CIA mislead Bush, and never told hium about the caveats within Zubayda's account, nor did the CIA leakers tell them to the NYTIMES. To Bush, the CIA gave the impression that there was no doubt; to the NYTIMES the CIA leakers gave the inmpression that there were no ties. WHY WOULD A LEAKER DO THIS? To hurt Bush.

LOOKIT: these leaks to Risen were either leaked by the SAME PERSON, or by someone who SOUGHT OUT RISEN (and the NYTIMES) because they knew that the NYTIMES would be EAGER to publish anything that would hurt Bush - even if it would hurt national security.

We find the leakers by finding the emails and phones calls which Risen (and the other bigshots at the NYTIMES) received or made to CIA/NSA/FISA people around the time which BOTH of the articles were written - and appeared. YUP: APPEARED; these guys strike me as the kind that can't help gloating. And we shouldn't take well-known Bush-haters Richard Clarke, Rand Beers, or Larry Wilkerson off the list, either. MORE HERE.

Book publishing is part of the MSM - with all the concomittant issues therein, ie: trenchant leftism; over-empahasis on post-modernism, "pushing the envelope" and trendiness; an inability to distinguis REAL talent from MERE audacity, and an unwillingness to even look at talent it if it's traditionalist. (OF COURSE THERE ARE EXCEPTIONS; there are now several imprints which specialize in conservative and traditionalist books - but they are in the distinct MINORITY and their books are virtually guaranteed to get less coverage/reviews in the MSM. They find their audience through talk radio and the blogosphere.)HERE'S MORE PROOF of MSM idiocy (via Dissecting Leftism):

Publishers and agents have rejected two Booker prize-winning novels submitted as works by aspiring authors. One of the books considered unworthy by the publishing industry was by V S Naipaul, one of Britain's greatest living writers, who won the Nobel prize for literature. The exercise by The Sunday Times draws attention to concerns that the industry has become incapable of spotting genuine literary talent. Typed manuscripts of the opening chapters of Naipaul's In a Free State and a second novel, Holiday, by Stanley Middleton, were sent to 20 publishers and agents. None appears to have recognised them as Booker prizewinners from the 1970s that were lauded as British novel writing at its best. Of the 21 replies, all but one were rejections".

I think this problem is WORSE in the movie business: the producers and the professional readers/gatekeepers are even less well-informed (about movies) and even more trend-oriented, more Leftist and more post-modern. What's the result of this insularity: bad box office. Which proves that the marketplace knows a good book and a good movie better thean the so-called pros. Which is EVEN MORE VINDICATION for Hayek and Surowiecki.

NEED MORE PROOF? Well, LOTR was REJECTED by 20 studios before New Line said yes. And virtually no wanted to publish an "overly long" children's fantasy book by an unknown writer on welfare; you: most agents and publishers turned down the first book by ... JK ROWLING.

THERE IS HOPE: the NEW MEDIA is breaking down the barriers to entry for writers, and soon more and more new writers will be able to find a HUGE PAYING audience without having to please a few gatekeepers. As the wise man once said (about another matter) FASTER PLEASE!

GAZPROM IS MAJORITY OWNED BY THE STATE OF RUSSIA, AND IT'S BEING USED AS A WEAPON BY PUTIN. In this socialist venture, Vladimir Putin and Gerhard Schroeder BELONG together: after all, they're both card-carrying socialists. I AM NOT RED-BAITING: This has EVERYTHING to do with what's going down vis a vis Ukraine and the Gazprom natural gas pipeline: If Gazprom was REALLY a PRIVATE company, then they wouldn't DARE do what their doing to Ukraine. Or UNDERCHARGE Belarus et al.

Rep. John Murtha, a key Democratic voice who favors pulling U.S. troops from Iraq, said in remarks airing on Monday that he would not join the U.S. military today.... Murtha told ABC News' "Nightline" program that Iraq "absolutely" was a wrong war for President George W. Bush to have launched.

"Would you join (the military) today?," he was asked in an interview taped on Friday.

"No," replied Murtha of Pennsylvania, the top Democrat on the House of Representatives subcommittee that oversees defense spending and one of his party's leading spokesmen on military issues. "And I think you're saying the average guy out there who's considering recruitment is justified in saying 'I don't want to serve'," the interviewer continued."Exactly right," said Murtha, who drew White House ire in November after becoming the first ranking Democrat to push for a pullout of U.S. forces from Iraq...

Vallandigham joined with Fernando Wood, mayor of New York City, and other like-minded individuals to establish the Peace Democrats, a faction that espoused a negotiated end to the fighting and recognition of an independent Confederacy if necessary. His views on the war were not popular with Ohio voters and he lost a bid for reelection in 1862.

Undeterred, Vallandigham continued his public criticism of the war effort. In May 1863, he was arrested for violating General Ambrose Burnside’s General Order No. 38, which subjected persons expressing sympathy for the enemy to possible imprisonment. Vallandigham’s conviction by a military tribunal was upheld by President Lincoln ...

The "PEACE DEMOCRATS" haven't changed one iota: they still advocate a cut'n run policy that appeases tyranny. And it's still treasonous.

References to the NSA eavesdropping program as "domestic spying." See, for example, the Times story on the investigation of the leaks underlying the story: "Justice Dept. Inquiry into leak of domestic spying." Contrary to the language used by the Times, the program is one of foreign intelligence surveillance; it is not a domestic spying program. Like the authorities in Oceania, the Times seeks to dictate the politically correct attitude to the subject.

I posted on this TWO WEEKS AGO - TWICE. (Proving once again that I scoop most of the top bloggers ROUTINELY. But you know that; that's why you come here everyday. THANKS! Now tell your friends!)

First, I scooped Powerline in a post from 12/21/05 titled THE MSM'S "BIG LIE" ON THE NSA INTERCEPT STORY; (I chose to use Goebbels' jargon, not Orwellian jargon). This post ANALYZED the MSM's language and contrasted it with the known facts:

The Left-wing dominated MSM has got MANY things in the NSA brouhaha ALL WRONG, and done so DELIBERATELY in order to CRANK UP the sense that this is a major scandal, (see below). Among the many MSM distortions are these:

(1) The MSM constantly refers to what the president authorized the NSA to do as "DOMESTIC SPYING," as if a wide net was cast over a slew of US citizens. THIS IS SIMPLY NOT THE CASE. A relatively few number of callers or calls were intercepted. Only international calls and only between suspected al Qaeda phones/(emails).

Second, ON THE SAME DAY - (12/21/05 - because I thought this angle was very important) - I did a GOOGLE NEWS word-search on "domestic spying" versus "international spying" in a post titled, THE BIG LIE: BUSH AUTHORIZED D-O-M-E-S-T-I-C SPYING. This post QUANTIFIED the extent of the MSM's use of the deliberate distortion, PROVING that this lie was an example of "THE BIG LIE."

That's "1/3160" and "807/1,570,000." THIS IS AN ASTOUNDING EXAMPLE OF PILING ON! Only 0.00005 of all the stories on this matter lead with the FACT that the calls which Bush wanted intercepted by the NSA (not the FBI or the CIA but the NSA) were INTERNATIONAL.

Since the TRUTH is that Bush only authorized intercepts of INTERNATIONAL CALLS - and only from al Qaeda and their affiliates, in and out of the country - when the MSM and the Left portrays this as "domestic spying" they are distorting to such a degree that, for all intents and purposes, THEY ARE LYING.

And they are deliberately lying about this aspect of the story because they know that Americans WON'T GIVE A HOOT if only foreigner's and terrorist's rights are infringed. They know they need to make it SEEM like Bush authorized the NSA to snoop on EVERYONE'S calls domestically.

This is a classic Leftist tactic: Leftists regularly use CONFLATION, and conflation is a logical fallacy. EXAMPLE: "Some of A is B; some of C is B; therefore C is A." THIS IS FALSE. And so is the charge that Bush ordered DOMESTIC surveillance.

As Churchill said, a lie travels round the world five times before the truth gets its pants on. A contemporary of Churchill's - Goebbels - invented the BIG lie. Today's post-modern Left and the MSM they dominate have perfected it.

I think this second post PROVED just how widespread the Left-wing dominated/anti-Bush MSM's dissembling really is - and how widespread it has to be in order to permeate the public discussion. This "BIG LIE/example of TIMESSPEAK" is the reason why this story has become a "scandal" in the minds of so many.

Of course, the MSM's deliberate, anti-Bush distortions are not new and have never been limited to the Iraq War. This kind of TIMESSPEAK is SOP for MSM. And why the blogosphere - especially blogs like POWERLINE - has become so important, if not crucial.

Monday, January 02, 2006

North Korea said Tuesday it cannot return to international nuclear disarmament talks unless the United States lifts sanctions imposed for its alleged currency counterfeiting and other illegal activities.

"While under U.S. sanctions, it's impossible to sit face-to-face and discuss abandoning our nuclear deterrent," said the Rodong Sinmun, the North's ruling Workers Party newspaper, in a Korean-language commentary carried by the official Korean Central News Agency. "The U.S. sanctions are obviously the fundamental element that disrupts the six-party talks," the newspaper said. The commentary was the first North Korean statement on the nuclear issue this year.

It's time to make them ONE LAST FINAL OFFER: They EITHER dismantle their nuclear program, and in return we will build a nuclear power plant in SOUTH Korea which will supply them with free power (until they can afford to buy cheap power). Or, we launch a massive, computer-coordinated, 15,000 strong smart missile preemptive strike (the likes of which have never been seen) entirely destroying their military. (And - BTW - we tell this to the Chinese and let them convince the NoKos to do what's right.)

Sunday, Venezuelan oil minister Rafael Ramirez said that the government "has successfully completed the recovery of the 32 oil fields whose control was ceded to private hands in the 1990s under concessions allowing companies to independently pump oil under contract."

Operating agreements the private oil companies and the Venevuelan government had to operate the oil fields expired December 31st when the companies failed to convert them into joint ventures with the State owned Petroleos de Venezuela SA (PDVSA). The joint ventures were to give majority control to PDVSA. As a result of the agreements not converting, Venezuela took back the fields.

In Venezuela and Russia things are going backwards. WHY?! The socialist "oil-garchs" Chavez and Putin are taking advantage of our focus on the GWOT and Iran and North Korea. WHAT'S THE SOLUTION?! We need to drill for oil in ANWR and in the Gulf of Mexico off the coast of Florida, and anywhere else we got oil - NOW.

Here's another interesting column on Chavez and his fellow socialists Castro and Morales from AXCESS; EXCERPT: Media Glorify Socialist Thugs, While Their People Risk Death to Enter US

According to a number of Sunday news stories, during Bolivia's newly elected President Evo Morales' visit with Cuban dictator Fidel Castro in Havana, the two communist leaders announced that the cooperation between their two countries will blossom. Of course, the American news media avoided the words "communism" and "communist" or even "socialism" or "socialist," preferring the term "left-leaning."

One may argue that the US Democrat Party is left-leaning instead of being socialist or communist, but Morales and Venezuela's President Hugo Chavez aren't leaning -- they wholeheartedly jumped into the radical-socialist cesspool. [...]

While the likes of the New York Times portrays the US as a nation approaching a police state, with the Democrat Party and some "left-leaning" Republicans concerned with the decline in civil liberties, thousands and thousands of people risk life and limb to enter the US to live a life of abject poverty rather than remaining in their own socialist countries.

As the incendiary training at some of Pakistan's seminaries drew renewed focus in the weeks after the July 7 bombings in London, President Pervez Musharraf promised to bring the schools into the mainstream and expel their foreign students by the end of the year. But his tough pledge has fizzled. Last week, the government backed away from its deadline and said it would not use force to deport the students. ... The limited gains in carrying out the madrasa changes reflect the delicate choices General Musharraf faces. His backers say that pursuing madrasas too aggressively would enable religious radicals to depict him as a stooge for the West. Critics say the effort reflects a half-hearted resolve to flush out religious militancy.

His promise last July was, in fact, a reiteration of earlier promises. After the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, madrasa reform was among the many changes General Musharraf pledged in exchange for generous aid and debt relief from the United States and other Western allies.

On Friday, Interior Minister Aftab Ahmed Khan Sherpao told Reuters that the government would not use force to round up foreign students. "The management of the madrasas are responsible to arrange departures of their students and we are pushing them to help us in implementing this decision," he said.

The Associated Press, citing figures from the main association of religious schools, the Federation of Madrasas, reported last week that about 1,000 foreign students had left since July, while another 700 remained.

In addition to expelling foreign students, General Musharraf said in July that the madrasas would be required to register with the government and to account for their financing. So far, 5,000 of the 12,000 established schools have not registered, according to the minister for religious affairs, Ijaz ul-Haq.

Seems to me we ought to withhold some aid and debt relief from Pakistan. There is nothing wrong with conditional aid. HERE'S ANOTHER REASON WHY WE NEED TO GET TOUGHER WITH THEM - FROM THE BANGKOK POST NEWS:

Afghanistan's Taliban have gained sway in a sensitive border area where they have been killing their opponents with impunity despite the heavy presence of government forces. The word of the militants, who call themselves Taliban, has virtually become law in parts of the semi-autonomous North Waziristan tribal area, while the military appears loath to intervene. ''The situation is no longer under their control,'' Rahimullah Yusufzai, a prominent journalist and expert on the region, said of the Pakistani army. The government had ''totally abdicated'' its authority in North Waziristan, he said. ''It seems it's Taliban raj [rule] there.''

Pakistani followers of Afghanistan’s Taliban have gained sway in a sensitive border area where they have been killing their opponents with impunity despite the heavy presence of government forces.

The word of the militants, who call themselves Taliban, has virtually become law in parts of the semi-autonomous North Waziristan tribal area while the military appears loathe to intervene.‘‘The situation is no longer under their control,’’ Rahimullah Yusufzai, a prominent journalist and expert on the region, said of the Pakistani Army. The government had ‘‘totally abdicated’’ its authority in North Waziristan, he said. ‘‘It seems it’s Taliban raj there.

I agreed with Bush when he said, "You're either with us, or you're with the terrorists." It seems that he has recently and sadly abandoned that policy, and the result is backsliding (in Gaza, Afghanistan, and Pakistan, AND in regard to prolonged "negotitations with" Iran and North Korea - where time is definitely NOT on our side). This is not surprising: The enemy gets only more motivated whenever we show a lack of resolve or a lack of moral clarity - EVEN with our "allies". My message to Bush: Get Tougher!